New PS3 Details in Latest PSM [Archive]

netcraazzy

08-01-2005, 02:59 PM

The Opposable Thumbs section over at Ars Technica has a laundry list (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2005/8/1/846) of new PS3 details gleamed from the latest issue of PSM Magazine. Two interesting tidbits include Sony dropping support for 3rd party peripherals and the lack of backwards compatibility with older memory cards.

From the article:
You know all that stuff about backwards compatibility with the PS2 and the original Playstation? Well, we've got good news and bad news for you. Your old save games won't be usable, thanks to the PS3's reliance on the Memory Stick Duo for storing save data. The good news is that downloading and saving shares via your PC (ahem, ahem) for all three Playstation versions and the PSP will be easy as pie. And we like pie.

Chiggs

08-01-2005, 04:46 PM

According to PSM, Sony plans on beefing up some of the specs on the PS3 (more memory). Take this with a huge grain of salt, though, as none of it has been confirmed.

nonchalance

08-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Lack of memory card compatibility is really sad.
Expected, I guess, but still, sad.

Plac1d

08-01-2005, 05:07 PM

None of the peripherals used for Playstation 1 and 2 isn't compatible with PS3. Why don't they just give the PS3 a different name if it hardly represents the older Playstations at all?

Kelegacy

08-01-2005, 05:13 PM

Lack of memory card compatibility is really sad.
Expected, I guess, but still, sad.

It's downright bullshit. I want my memory cards to be compatible. I thought that maybe, just MAYBE, my fragile PS2 could be discarded to make room for a hopefully more durable (hopefully) PS3, since it would be backwards compatible with all the Playstation games.

This isnt kosher. Use my feckin' PC so i can properly use my console? Yeah, sure. Why not just get rid of the fucking memory cards and use a HDD?

These things are always small, but tiny dings lead to dents lead to cracks lead to MS winning. Fuckwads and their insatiable hubris. As a Sony fan, this bothers me.

NACIONAL

08-01-2005, 05:19 PM

Use your PSP as a remote.

I'm not a lazy bastard... I still have to put the game in the console.. i could start it then... that feature means crap for me...

Most games will be 720p.
Wee saw this comming.... And this is the nail:

PC gamers have it so good. Battlefield 2 not running so well? Play it at a lower resolution and watch the game speed up. Sony wants to have games run faster and smoother by dropping the resolution, but it remains to be seen whether game developers will let us have that choice.

Oh my God!!!!... this is really really anoying. One of the things that i like about console games is the thing that YOU DON'T HAVE TO MESS WITH SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, you just put your game and the game plays.. no installation, nothing!!.... And, come on... if the game is on the shelves, it should be polished.. ..

or did I read in a wrong way?

Kagger

08-01-2005, 05:33 PM

I didn't read the artical, but the snippet there I think it means Sony is encouraging developers to drop the resolution for release

EvilBob46

08-01-2005, 05:43 PM

None of the peripherals used for Playstation 1 and 2 isn't compatible with PS3. Why don't they just give the PS3 a different name if it hardly represents the older Playstations at all?

Well, I hear the PS3 is still going to be backwards compatible with PS1/2 software. How this is going to be done I don't know, emulation perhaps? And not calling the console Playstation makes no sense from a marketing point of view...

ReaverX

08-01-2005, 05:44 PM

There's a homebrew app that already lets you use your psp as a remote. Last version I saw it controlled Sony Wega tvs, ps2s with infared ports, and the dvd player built in the ps2.

Morrolan

08-01-2005, 06:22 PM

Jesus christ. No 3rd party controllers and that Klingon Batleth Offical Controller combine to form... crap.

Chandler

08-01-2005, 06:37 PM

sony should sell a $5 dexdrive or something, oh well :/

bobbler

08-01-2005, 06:42 PM

Some of you are reading into this a bit too much (no surprise, this is EA after all...)

No PS2/PS1 peripheral will work without an adapter (which will most likely be out -- ps2/ps1 port to usb) -- There aren't any controller jacks. They aren't saying that 3rd party peripherals are outlawed and won't exist. It's like Xbox1 controllers/peripherals not working with Xbox360, or GC controllers/peripherals not working with Rev (assumingly). None of their memory cards will work in the new ones also (as far as I know). Whats the problem? All three next gen consoles seem to have this problem -- How are you going to get saves from Xbox to Xbox360? or GC to Rev? There will be ways, be sure of it (maybe through network/usb on Xbox-Xbox360/PS2-PS3, not sure on GC-Rev).

I'm happy they are dropping proprietary memory cards in favor of those memory sticks/cards. Fuck paying 20-30 dollars for 8mb when I can get 256-512mb stick/card for that much.

The resolution deal is a poorly worded and played jab at Xbox360 for mandating a resolution minimum. Sony doesn't have a mandatory res, so developers, if they so choose, can make a 480p game (god only knows why anyone would want to, but whatever the developer wants it can do). Most games, obviously, will be in 720p, some will be in 1080p (probably more as the generation progresses and they are able to squeeze more out of the console), some might be in 480p (it doesn't make much sense though; if it can run in 480p and not in 720p then they must be doing some crazy stuff, in which case the gain in graphics fidelity from doing the "crazy stuff" will be lost because you won't be able to see shit).

Groo

08-01-2005, 06:49 PM

I remember reading PSM when the PS2 was coming out. PSM loved to "speculate" on the potential features of the PS2, and I'm sure that's where a lot of the misinformation about the PS2 came from. It looks like they're at it again with the PS3.

Heretic Machine

08-01-2005, 06:54 PM

So, their backwards compatability is useless? Why even include it then?

divinechaos

08-01-2005, 06:55 PM

nonchalance

08-01-2005, 07:00 PM

or GC controllers/peripherals not working with Rev (assumingly). None of their memory cards will work in the new ones also (as far as I know).

Revolution has four GC controller ports and a GC memory stick slot.
Pretty cool.

bobbler

08-01-2005, 07:02 PM

Sorry, that's right -- Rev has 4 GC ports and 2 memory card ports. (I wasn't sure, hence the "assumingly" part).

nonchalance

08-01-2005, 07:11 PM

So: we have one console that's backwards compatible, and two that can play games of the previous generation.

I was all about the PS3 when it was announced, but the more I see about it, the more I think I'll want a box and the Rev.

Twigz'N'Berries

08-01-2005, 07:31 PM

Not to be pro Sony, but 'big deal'.

Until (if it ever does) it changes, the PS3 will have the ability to play PS2 games out of the box...no waiting for a download or until the company 'gets around' to making an old game compatible.

Score 1 for Sony.

PS2 controllers won't work with PS3 out of the box. Well, 360 doesn't have that advantage either...so that isn't a selling point. The Revolution has it built in...but IMO, everyone is looking at the console race as a two party affair. The Revolution has little info out except that it will be backwards compatible with GC and you can download any of the old games...for a fee. If I had an emulator I could do the same thing with all of the old games (except for GC)on my computer, but that is illegal. GC hardly has an titles that I will miss playing.

Score 1/2 Nintendo

The memory card won't be compatible. I don't know where you are buying your memory sticks, but those are dirt cheap if you are comparing the Sony PS memory card ($19.99) w/the price of a Sony (or any other brand) direct duo stick ($39.99 or higher depending on the capacity).
Xbox looks to have the same problem...adding to that, the game you have saves for may not even be compatible with the 360. Nintendo...why am I mentioning them?? They just aren't a factor for me anymore. No disrespect to the Nintendo faithful, but they are like a fighter that has past his prime...I don't need a Mario Party 9 or some Donkey Kong I have to play with bongos. Maybe Ricky Ricardo would think that was cool, but I'll pass.

Score Even

PS3 is going to (allegedly) beef up their graphics. More and more I'm thinking Sony is such a bunch of lying turds. Their system was nowhere near complete. All of these 'changes'...bullsh!t. They never had finalized hardware or even close. The only reason they are 'beefing' up their tech specs is to try to get something that is capable of producing real time Killzone graphics. It was a good movie...now what can the thing do gamewise?
I hear MS is looking into putting a HD-DVD player into the 360...but not in the later stages. WTF?! If you do not learn from the mistakes of the past (Sega and their millions of add ons or Sony's PSX) you will be doomed to repeat it. If you want the HD-DVD...put it in all 360s. If not, don't put it in any of them. Period.

Score slight edge 360

End result...who knows until these two machines (and the Rev) come out.

51|RandoM

08-01-2005, 07:50 PM

You guys are really getting upset that the memory cards aren't backwards compatible?

I wish somebody would make a console with every feature you guys wanted, then we could watch you bitch and moan when they had to charge $1500 for it to cover the hardware costs.

Achilles

08-01-2005, 07:51 PM

I’m really disappointed that they’re not going to allow you to save your games to the HDD. That’s the most common use for it by far and is a huge convenience.

PhilR8

08-01-2005, 08:26 PM

So now I have the privelage of paying $50 for a Pro Duo just to save my goddamn games? Wow, I can't wait! SIGN ME UP TODAY!!11!!1!!!

Royal Fool

08-01-2005, 08:30 PM

Who needs a HDD when you have memory sticks? Sony earns huge profits/royalties that way.

Oh, you mean consumer convenience? I don't think Sony has been introduced to that concept yet.

mister_slim

08-01-2005, 08:58 PM

PS2 controllers won't work with PS3 out of the box. Well, 360 doesn't have that advantage either...so that isn't a selling point.
Well, the 360 controller is the same as the Controller S in relevant respects. Too bad for people with expensive wheels, I guess.

Dirty Harry

08-01-2005, 09:21 PM

Well, the 360 controller is the same as the Controller S in relevant respects. Too bad for people with expensive wheels, I guess.
Is not the xbox controller port a simple usb plug with minor comsmetic differences?.

Twigz'N'Berries

08-01-2005, 09:52 PM

Well, the 360 controller is the same as the Controller S in relevant respects. Too bad for people with expensive wheels, I guess.

...and Sony can't change the controller if it gets too much negative response about it?

If I remember my Xbox had this fat azz controller with hard buttons that hurt your fingers if you played too much. They got permission from the gods to change their controller to the "S" and they have been in business ever since.

Sony has too much riding on the PS3 to screw it up. Blu Ray will likely die if the PS3 doesn't have a large install base. They won'y ship as many Cells without the Ps3 moving...which we know they are counting on as well. Plus Sony will see an increase in their memory stick business if the PS3 can move well.

Sony is not allowing any 3rd party accessories so they see a larger profit on PS3 sales.

tai.mei.shu

08-02-2005, 12:35 AM

the prob is not the features, its the feature cutting, dont say something then dont do it. or dont say you can do something and, then tell people that you cant do it. ms does it too, and im a ms lover, but sony does it to an extent, that is horrible. its like telling a kid that he can get some ice cream, then tell him no he cant. that crushes his soul, and that means that you can never give him your word.

Darkmatter

08-02-2005, 12:37 AM

PC gamers have it so good. Battlefield 2 not running so well? Play it at a lower resolution and watch the game speed up. Sony wants to have games run faster and smoother by dropping the resolution, but it remains to be seen whether game developers will let us have that choice.

Ok THIS worries me... Whats to stop a company to put out a game that looks great at a high res and advertise it at this amazing rez but when you get it home its JUST playable enough at that res that they are safe and clear from lawsuits, but to really enjoy the game you have to lower the res, which is exactly what they suggest once you get the game home and open it up...? Considering how many companies release PC games that barely even work at release without 3 months worth of patches I wouldn't put this past anyone...

Vandenh

08-02-2005, 01:25 AM

What is a memory card daddy?

bobbler

08-02-2005, 02:03 AM

Twigz:
where does it say they aren't allowing third party accessories? (there isn't really a way for them to stop anyone from doing it, anyways -- reverse engineering a controller isn't exactly rocket science for most companies)

The current batch of accessories, since they are made for the PS2, won't work right out of the box with the PS3 -- Is this not common sense? It says nothing about not allowing third party accessories, so don't worry (I'm not sure where this came from). I happen to have the crappy magazine right in front of me and nowhere does it say anything that can even be construed as such.

I'd bet my reputation on the fact that there will be some way to transfer saves and use PS2 controllers on PS3. Same with the Xbox360. It's highly stupid to assume otherwise. Hell, there are PS2 to USB adapters for PC -- somehow assuming they won't exist for the PS3 (assuming those ones aren't compatible as it is) is bonkers.

Darkmatter:
They aren't saying you'll be able to switch the resolution in every game (at least they shouldn't be, if thats what they are trying to say), they are saying the developers have choices and may be able to give users the choice (meaning, you won't get the choice, as it offers nothing and just gives devs more work -- they might have it internally render at a set resolution and then allow you to choose the output res, but that is different). Don't worry.

(not directed at anyone in general... or maybe directed at everyone in general):
It's amazing some of you have lasted beyond your childhood the way you guys come to conclusions. Some backward ass thinking going on at EvAv lately...

Commissar Rob

08-02-2005, 05:00 AM

What is a memory card daddy?

The memory card was the weapon of the console gamer. From a more civilized time. Before the Console Wars. Before Kutaragi...

Roc Ingersol

08-02-2005, 06:50 AM

The memory card was the weapon of the console gamer. From a more civilized time. Before the Console Wars. Before Kutaragi...
Heh.

The resolution 'choice' is bad, if you have an HDTV. Because it means most dev companies won't render to 720p when the vast majority of the playstation market has 480i. A handful of games will be HD, most won't bother.

That's the one truth of console gaming: if it isn't required and included it doesn't happen.

Just look at the XBox: It gave developers the 'choice' to support HD resolutions. Count the HD titles.

Groo

08-02-2005, 08:21 AM

Ok THIS worries me... Whats to stop a company to put out a game that looks great at a high res and advertise it at this amazing rez...

I've noticed that companies have actually been doing this a lot lately. They've been taking screen shots using in game models, but increasing the resolution and anti-aliasing so much, that everything looks perfectly smooth.

Here's an example:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/previews/ps2/god-of-war/god-of-war1.jpg

God of War looks great, but not quite this jaggy free.

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200501/15/04/a0000104_2115168.jpg

Wipeout Pure looks really nice, but the actual game has more jaggies to go around.

Am I the only one who notices this?

bobbler

08-02-2005, 12:14 PM

Heh.

The resolution 'choice' is bad, if you have an HDTV. Because it means most dev companies won't render to 720p when the vast majority of the playstation market has 480i. A handful of games will be HD, most won't bother.

That's the one truth of console gaming: if it isn't required and included it doesn't happen.

Just look at the XBox: It gave developers the 'choice' to support HD resolutions. Count the HD titles.

That's some bad logic there. If that were true then why didn't PS2 and Xbox stay with 320x240 of PS1 and previous eras? 320x240 must be easier that 640x480!

It isn't going to be more work to go with 720p over 480p. The reason Xbox didn't was because of system power -- most games just wouldn't have done well at 720p/1080i (thats 3x the pixels of 480p). PS3 and Xbox360 both have quite enough power to do 720p. Adding a requirement isn't necessary -- regardless of what MS thinks. Requirements never existed previously, whats the point of them now? Marketing.

Developers, oddly enough, want to push the limits of whatever box they are working on -- they aren't going to settle for 480p because it's 'easier' or because they can. They'll go 1080p if the game they are doing works well enough at it (Heavenly Sword is slated to be 1080p game, for example -- it may not end up that way, but currently they have it running that way). It is rather insulting to developers to say they'll go with the minimum required.

netcraazzy

08-02-2005, 12:34 PM

Here's my take on this information, assuming it is correct.

Memory Cards: For Sony, changing memory standards is practically a corporate mantra so I'm not surprised by this move. I also think the added benefit of the Memory Stick Duo being more PC friendly will outweigh the fact that you can't use your crusty old fantivision saves in the long run. I'm sure all the console modders and hackers are already pondering the possibilities.

3rd Party Peripherals: It appears that what Sony is doing is dropping support for what you would call their seal of approval on 3rd party peripherals. I seriously doubt that there won't be ANY 3rd party stuff out there but they won't be getting any help from Sony when they go to make their stuff for the PS3. Now the real question is, will Sony actively try to stop 3rd parties form making peripherals? After all profits from peripherals is one way to offset the losses on an expensive console, just speculating a little here.

Hard drive not for games: I really don't care at this point, since they already made the mistake of not including a hard drive in the standard package you might as well say it's not for games since it won't be getting much developer support anyway.

PSP Remote: Ok Sony, just because you have a handheld now does not mean you have to take a page from Nintendo's playbook on lame ideas to try to sell more handhelds. Why anybody would want to use a $250, fragile, very breakable handheld in place of a $20 remote is beyond me.

TiVo Capabilities: I'll believe it when I see it.

Most Games 720p: I pretty much expected this, since all 360 games have to support this already it's not hard to fathom that this is going to be the new standard for the next console generation.

Speed or Quality: This is just poorly stated information. All you conspiracy theorists out there can calm down because nobody is going to create a game that you have to lower the resolution on to get it to play on the PS3. Computer games have multiple resolutions in order to address the fact that people have wildly different PC configurations and hence you have to make your software adaptable. This is not true on a PS3 where everybody’s is pretty much the same so adding a feature like that is just silly.

bobbler

08-02-2005, 01:17 PM

3rd Party Peripherals: It appears that what Sony is doing is dropping support for what you would call their seal of approval on 3rd party peripherals. I seriously doubt that there won't be ANY 3rd party stuff out there but they won't be getting any help from Sony when they go to make their stuff for the PS3. Now the real question is, will Sony actively try to stop 3rd parties form making peripherals? After all profits from peripherals is one way to offset the losses on an expensive console, just speculating a little here.

Where are people getting this?

The statement that PSM made was that ALL peripherals of PS1/PS2 wouldn't be supported out of the box to PS3 -- because there are no slots to plug them in. It never said that third party peripherals wouldn't be allowed or supported. There will be an adapter (PS1/2 port to USB), it, like I said before, would be stupid to expect there to be none.

netcraazzy

08-02-2005, 01:55 PM

Where are people getting this?

The statement that PSM made was that ALL peripherals of PS1/PS2 wouldn't be supported out of the box to PS3 -- because there are no slots to plug them in. It never said that third party peripherals wouldn't be allowed or supported. There will be an adapter (PS1/2 port to USB), it, like I said before, would be stupid to expect there to be none.

I guess I misunderstood the article. I don't get PSM though so I'm just going by what was said in the Ars news article.

MrMeatshake

08-03-2005, 07:27 AM

Jesus christ. No 3rd party controllers and that Klingon Batleth Offical Controller combine to form... crap.

lol. microsoft hands the 'completely unable to design controllers' crown to sony...

Groo

08-03-2005, 08:38 AM

Where does it say that there will be no more third party peripherals? That would be insane. Sony would lose tons of money on licensing.

I just love how people assume things before they're even officially confirmed.

Kamalot

08-03-2005, 11:33 AM

I've noticed that companies have actually been doing this a lot lately. They've been taking screen shots using in game models, but increasing the resolution and anti-aliasing so much, that everything looks perfectly smooth.

Here's an example:
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/previews/ps2/god-of-war/god-of-war1.jpg

God of War looks great, but not quite this jaggy free.

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200501/15/04/a0000104_2115168.jpg

Wipeout Pure looks really nice, but the actual game has more jaggies to go around.

Am I the only one who notices this?

DAMN!

I'm glad I cought your post Groo. You are so right. Neither of these games look this good in action. I think they are using these 'enhanced resolution' images to hoodwink the unsuspecting public on how good these games look.

Grrr. Dat's frustrating.

Oh, and anyone who says God of War is as good looking as 1st Party Nintendo or Xbox exclusives is blind.

Kelegacy

08-03-2005, 11:52 AM

DAMN!

I'm glad I cought your post Groo. You are so right. Neither of these games look this good in action. I think they are using these 'enhanced resolution' images to hoodwink the unsuspecting public on how good these games look.

Grrr. Dat's frustrating.

Oh, and anyone who says God of War is as good looking as 1st Party Nintendo or Xbox exclusives is blind.

I'm glad I saw this too. For months I've been thinking my tv has been distorting images, lower resolutions and such because my games havent been looking as good as Gamespot's screenshots...and never have. And i have a HDTV!

Thank god it's not just me who noticed this. Atelier Iris was the latest game I was worried over. Gamespot's resolutions of screens were WAAAY too nice compared to mine. Like a PC game almost.

bobbler

08-03-2005, 11:58 AM

This has been happening since PS1 generation to some extent. It's commonplace now. Up the res of the screenshots to at least 1024/768 and add a bunch of AA (of course looking at a 640x480 without AA like most games now have would look worse on pc monitor because its higher quality and shows pictures more clearly -- TVs have this nasty habit of fudging over fine lines). At least next generation the screenshots will be in resolutions that can be displayed on the console...